The question was a narrow but consequential one of procedure: when a Special Court confirms the attachment of a person’s property under the anti-terror law, can that person appeal to the High Court, or is the order merely interlocutory and beyond appeal? The NIA argued the latter, that the UAPA is a complete code allowing only one appeal on attachment. The High Court disagreed, holding that an order finally deciding the attachment question is appealable to the High Court under the NIA Act, and rejected the objection to maintainability.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by a Special Court under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, confirming the attachment of property, is not an interlocutory order, and that an appeal against such an order is maintainable before the High Court under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 [Aquil Ahmed v. National Investigation Agency].
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja rejected the preliminary objection raised by the NIA on the maintainability of the appeal, and listed the matter for final hearing.
The background
The appellant’s property in Pune had been attached by the Designated Authority under Section 25(3) of the UAPA, and that attachment was confirmed. His appeal against the confirmation was dismissed by the Special Judge under Section 25(6) of the UAPA, following which he approached the High Court under Section 28 of the UAPA read with Section 21 of the NIA Act.
The NIA raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable. Its case was that Chapter V of the UAPA, dealing with the forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism, is a complete code in itself: against an order of attachment, Section 25(6) provides only one appeal, to the Special Court, while against an order of forfeiture under Section 26, an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 28. On that reading, it argued, Section 21 of the NIA Act had no application to an order under Section 25(6), as that would amount to a second appeal against attachment; and in any event, it submitted, an order under Section 25(6) is interlocutory, against which no appeal lies under Section 21.
ALSO READ: It’s Settled Law That NIA Can Probe An Accused Of A Non-Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court
Attachment and forfeiture are distinct stages
The Court’s analysis turned on the scheme of Chapter V of the UAPA and the distinction between attachment and forfeiture. Attachment of property under Section 25 and forfeiture of property under Section 26, the Court held, are two different and distinct stages: the simple attachment of property does not automatically lead to its forfeiture. A separate show-cause notice is required under Section 27, and only after hearing the party concerned is an order of forfeiture passed under Section 26.
Because the two stages are distinct and each is final in its own stage, the Court held, an order under Section 25(6) confirming attachment finally adjudicates the party’s rights so far as attachment is concerned; it is not a step along the way to some further order in the same proceeding, but the conclusion of the attachment question. On that footing, it could not be characterised as interlocutory.
Section 21 of the NIA Act, the Court noted, provides for an appeal to the High Court against any judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court that is not an interlocutory order. Since an order under Section 25(6) of the UAPA is not interlocutory, an appeal against it lies to the High Court under Section 21.
The ‘conflicting appeals’ concern rejected
The Court was not persuaded by the NIA’s concern that holding a Section 21 appeal maintainable against a Section 25(6) attachment order could produce conflicting High Court opinions, given that a separate appeal against forfeiture already lies to the High Court under Section 28. Since attachment and forfeiture are distinct stages, the Court reasoned, the two appeals would deal with different stages of the proceedings, each final in its own stage; and in any case, there was no reason to presume that the High Court hearing the later appeal would not take due cognizance of any order passed by the High Court in the earlier one.
The Court noted that a coordinate Bench had, in an earlier matter, formed a prima facie view that such an appeal is maintainable, and distinguished another order in which the Court had declined to entertain an appeal on the peculiar facts of that case without recording any finding on maintainability. It also drew support from a Division Bench decision of the Jharkhand High Court, in which the position that the proper remedy against an order under Section 25(6) is an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act had been accepted, and from the settled principle that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is to be exercised only where there is no efficacious alternative remedy, which reinforced that the statutory appeal is the appropriate route.
Holding the appeal maintainable and rejecting the preliminary objection, the Court listed the matter for final hearing on December 2, 2026.
Why it matters
The ruling settles, at least at the level of this Bench, a question of real practical importance to anyone whose property is attached in a UAPA proceeding: whether the confirmation of that attachment by the Special Court is the end of the road within the statute, or whether it can be tested on appeal before the High Court. By holding that the order is not interlocutory and is appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act, the Court has kept open a substantive appellate check on attachment, rather than leaving the affected party to the narrower and more uncertain route of writ jurisdiction.
The reasoning rests on a distinction that matters well beyond this case, between attachment, a provisional freezing of property, and forfeiture, the permanent divesting of it after a separate hearing. Treating the two as distinct stages, each with its own finality and its own appeal, gives the property owner a right of appeal at the attachment stage without collapsing it into the later forfeiture stage, and answers the objection that this creates a duplicative or conflicting remedy. It also aligns with the general principle that where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, that remedy, rather than a writ petition, is the proper course.
It bears emphasis that this order decides only the maintainability of the appeal, not its merits. Whether the attachment of the appellant’s property was justified remains to be decided at the final hearing, and nothing in this order expresses any view on that question or on the underlying allegations, which are untested. What the Court has settled is the gateway: that the door of the High Court is open to an appeal against the confirmation of attachment under the UAPA.
Case Title: Aquil Ahmed v. National Investigation Agency [CRL.A. 1011/2024]
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Order: September 15, 2026 | Next Listed: December 2, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Adit S. Pujari with others for the appellant. Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi with others for the NIA.
Status: Preliminary objection on maintainability rejected; appeal held maintainable. Merits of the attachment to be decided at final hearing; allegations untested.